Garden State Parkway

[ixnay]

https://maps.app.goo.gl/66WQe4FyhyYKtQxX7

This is interesting. Control cities being used on a local road in Cape May County for the Parkway.

What am I missing? Seems standard.

Not for the Parkway. Usually you get a small shields with the two directions and the infamous entry trapezoid. Very rare you get control cities in NJDOT fashion for the Parkway.

Even NJ 440 don't use them with the new sine salad in Woodbridge from the most recent resigning project. The SB 440 to SB Parkway has none even though Shore Points should be used there from one major highway to another.

I never thought of that trapezoid as infamous.  But if the NJHA thought that the trapezoid was designed to "say" "Garden State Parkway", they shot a brick.  Square or rectangular signs at the entrances would have done the job just as well.  That said, I don't have an opinion on the gargantuan green keystones at the PA Turnpike's entrances, but that's for that thread.

[roadman65]

https://maps.app.goo.gl/66WQe4FyhyYKtQxX7

This is interesting. Control cities being used on a local road in Cape May County for the Parkway.

What am I missing? Seems standard.

Not for the Parkway. Usually you get a small shields with the two directions and the infamous entry trapezoid. Very rare you get control cities in NJDOT fashion for the Parkway.

Even NJ 440 don't use them with the new sine salad in Woodbridge from the most recent resigning project. The SB 440 to SB Parkway has none even though Shore Points should be used there from one major highway to another.

I never thought of that trapezoid as infamous.  But if the NJHA thought that the trapezoid was designed to "say" "Garden State Parkway", they shot a brick.  Square or rectangular signs at the entrances would have done the job just as well.  That said, I don't have an opinion on the gargantuan green keystones at the PA Turnpike's entrances, but that's for that thread.

I'm rather fond of those signs. They're unique and part of New Jersey just like the old Turnpike signs they were forced to give up.  I used infamous to be friendly sarcastic as I didn't know what else to say as they're only famous to us. Non road enthusiasts couldn't care less what kind of sign is used.

[ixnay]

On the NJ Tpk. thread it was theorized that the toll gates on the nb off ramp and sb on ramp at GSP exit 4 (NJ 47) were designed to soak the motorists headed between the Cape May-Lewes Ferry and the Wildwoods.  Did the tolls at exit 4 exist prior to 1964?  The CMLF didn't begin service until the summer of 1964, almost a decade after the Parkway opened.

[Roadgeek2500]

On the NJ Tpk. thread it was theorized that the toll gates on the nb off ramp and sb on ramp at GSP exit 4 (NJ 47) were designed to soak the motorists headed between the Cape May-Lewes Ferry and the Wildwoods.  Did the tolls at exit 4 exist prior to 1964?  The CMLF didn't begin service until the summer of 1964, almost a decade after the Parkway opened.

This is an interesting theory, as those ramps didn't exist prior to the CMLF opening. According to Historic Aerials they were built between '63 and '70, so the case could be made that they were in fact trying to squeeze ferry traffic, or they were just attempting to subsidize the cost of the ramps themselves.

[roadman65]

Florida done that with an exit on I-4. You had 50 and 51 and you brought up a new interchange in between that received Exit 51 A going now Exits 50, 51A, and 51.

Now the mile based scheme changed that but 51A and 51 are part of Exit 101 being you have a two mile long collector distribution system and FL 417/429 among that since.

[jeffandnicole]

On the NJ Tpk. thread it was theorized that the toll gates on the nb off ramp and sb on ramp at GSP exit 4 (NJ 47) were designed to soak the motorists headed between the Cape May-Lewes Ferry and the Wildwoods.  Did the tolls at exit 4 exist prior to 1964?  The CMLF didn't begin service until the summer of 1964, almost a decade after the Parkway opened.

This is an interesting theory, as those ramps didn't exist prior to the CMLF opening. According to Historic Aerials they were built between '63 and '70, so the case could be made that they were in fact trying to squeeze ferry traffic, or they were just attempting to subsidize the cost of the ramps themselves.

Trying to do a perusal of the Internet looking for stories from 1963-1970, it's coming up blank regarding the interchange.

The intersection with (today's) NJ 109 and US 9, slightly to the west, received a substantial upgrade around the time of the Ferry's opening, making it easier to use US 9 North to NJ 47 to get to Wildwood.

However, at Exit 0, it's a reminder that the original interchange wasn't improved upon around the Ferry's opening.  The main throughput had sent traffic on Shore Road towards Cape May with a small median cutout to turn north as if it was a secondary thought.  Not only was this condition never improved upon when the Ferry opened, it remained in its original condition until 2014 when it finally received a much-needed revision. 

[roadman65]

On the NJ Tpk. thread it was theorized that the toll gates on the nb off ramp and sb on ramp at GSP exit 4 (NJ 47) were designed to soak the motorists headed between the Cape May-Lewes Ferry and the Wildwoods.  Did the tolls at exit 4 exist prior to 1964?  The CMLF didn't begin service until the summer of 1964, almost a decade after the Parkway opened.

This is an interesting theory, as those ramps didn't exist prior to the CMLF opening. According to Historic Aerials they were built between '63 and '70, so the case could be made that they were in fact trying to squeeze ferry traffic, or they were just attempting to subsidize the cost of the ramps themselves.

Considering you travel further north and can exit for free before the CM Mainline Plaza. Now I'm surprised that they didn't put tolls on the new ramps to replace the at grades, but like from 129-140 and 80-83 where in 1986 when the Parkway assumed maintenance of the three original Parkway sections, that they also had the same deal where ramp tolls could never be put up if they assumed control. In Northern Middlesex and Union County who never paid tolls on ramps, there was concern about people never paying a toll for forty years would all of a sudden be charged tolls. So the state looked after its people and put a stipulation in effect during the sale.  Most likely that deal covered all state sections and not just two. Unlike Exit 74 that did add ramp tolls as well as SB Exit 77 who have tolls to defray the costs of those ramps. For decades Lacey Road was free until the interchange got improved due to queues from the former traffic signal at the ramp end spilled out onto the Parkway itself along with NB Parkway users cutting through the service area to access Lacey Road which prior to the nineties had no ramp. So the Authority was able to grant a ramp toll to defray the construction to ease burden on the other tolls.

[SignBridge]

This is related to a discussion in the NJ Turnpike thread, but this issue applies specifically to the G.S. Parkway. I recently discovered that on the Parkway at some exits (notably 163 northbound) unbelievably there is no (BGS) sign at the beginning of the long deceleration lane. Last advance sign is 1/2 mile back. And what's worse is the new (2023) MUTCD actually permits this practice. (Pages 305, 316, Sec. 2E-25-05). On page 305 the graphic surprisingly shows the last advance sign as far back as 1 mile before an unsigned decel. lane. The new Manual recommends (not a standard) that if the exit direction sign is mounted overhead, then it should be in vicinity of the theoretical gore, not at the beginning of the decel. lane.

However, on the Parkway it's located at different spots at different exits. At some locations, it is at the beginning of the decel. lane, consistent with common sense, but contrary to the Manual's guidance. And in some places it's built halfway down the decel. lane. I guess where they put it depends on different factors such as curves, overpasses, etc.

I think a sign at the beginning of a parallel (not tapered) deceleration lane should be required. At least on the Turnpike, they have a 1/4 mile sign. Can't imagine why they didn't follow the same practice on the G.S. Parkway.

[jeffandnicole]

Can't imagine why they didn't follow the same practice on the G.S. Parkway.

There's a lot of differences between the two toll roads.

[SignBridge]

Can't imagine why they didn't follow the same practice on the G.S. Parkway.

There's a lot of differences between the two toll roads.

Well that's true, but I can't understand why the smart signing practice used on the Turnpike wasn't also used on the Parkway. Hoping someone here can shed some light.

[roadman65]

You know what's really interesting is that at the start of the deceleration lane you get the quarter mile guide, like was just posted.  However, I think they should post an upward angle arrow instead and still leave the at exit guide as it despite redundancy.

The problem is the NJTA didn't want to erect new gantries when they changed out the signs, so they just added these as an ad lib thing.

[SignBridge]

Roadman65, the practice you suggest, having two exit direction signs seems to be prohibited in the new 2023 MUTCD. Though it's not written as an actual  standard, on P.328, Fig. 2E-23 it says you can't have both a ground-mounted and an overhead E/D sign. Though it doesn't prohibit two overhead signs. Go figure.

More and more I'm starting to disagree with a lot of the guidance in the Manual. Some of it just seems to defy common sense. 

[roadman65]

Roadman65, the practice you suggest, having two exit direction signs seems to be prohibited in the new 2023 MUTCD. Though it's not written as an actual  standard, on P.328, Fig. 2E-23 it says you can't have both a ground-mounted and an overhead E/D sign. Though it doesn't prohibit two overhead signs. Go figure.

More and more I'm starting to disagree with a lot of the guidance in the Manual. Some of it just seems to defy common sense. 

Yet some interchanges in Florida have two sets of at exit guides.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/51189960702
Here's one in Hillsborough County.

Here are two others in Osceola County.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/14014863802/in/album-72157632301418857/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/14030756852

[SignBridge]

Interesting! Yes, the photo in Hillsborough County is a perfect example of what the new Manual says not to do. LOL But if Florida uses its own separate Manual or uses the Federal Manual along with a state supplement (like New York) they may have a provision allowing this practice.

Your two other photos from Osceola County are not applicable to this issue. They involve a lane-drop exit which is covered by a different set of standards in the Manual. 

[jeffandnicole]

Interesting! Yes, the photo in Hillsborough County is a perfect example of what the new Manual says not to do. LOL But if Florida uses its own separate Manual or uses the Federal Manual along with a state supplement (like New York) they may have a provision allowing this practice.

If it's prohibited only in the new manual, then it was acceptable previously, so they're fine as it based on previous guides.

[SignBridge]

You are correct J&N. The 2009 Manual didn't really address that issue. The 2023 Manual expands a lot on BGS spec's. with a lot of new graphics and specific guidance. And again, some of which I think is poorly thought out.

One thing they did expand on effectively though is allowing partial width Arrow-per-lane overhead signs, which allow the sign to just govern the two right lanes instead of the entire roadway width. Interestingly, G.S. Parkway already had at least one sign like that northbound, just north of the Union Toll Plaza at the I-78 interchange.

[roadman65]

Interesting! Yes, the photo in Hillsborough County is a perfect example of what the new Manual says not to do. LOL But if Florida uses its own separate Manual or uses the Federal Manual along with a state supplement (like New York) they may have a provision allowing this practice.

Your two other photos from Osceola County are not applicable to this issue. They involve a lane-drop exit which is covered by a different set of standards in the Manual. 

Then Florida also in violation taking down the old guides at I-4 exits 27 and 41 as the FTE replaced the at exit with new ones stating the SunPass Only or Pay By Plate since cash was eliminated in 2022. The problem is you have the new and the old ones together at both interchanges for Polk Parkway and the contractor is in no hurry to remove the old ones, that is if removal of the old was in the contract in the first place.

[storm2k]

You are correct J&N. The 2009 Manual didn't really address that issue. The 2023 Manual expands a lot on BGS spec's. with a lot of new graphics and specific guidance. And again, some of which I think is poorly thought out.

One thing they did expand on effectively though is allowing partial width Arrow-per-lane overhead signs, which allow the sign to just govern the two right lanes instead of the entire roadway width. Interestingly, G.S. Parkway already had at least one sign like that northbound, just north of the Union Toll Plaza at the I-78 interchange.

They had a few. The signs for the new SB Exit 125 ramp utilize them. They started these around 2008-09 (the one at 142C is from when they built the Parkway-78 missing moves ramps).

[Great Lakes Roads]

3% toll hike on the Parkway starting on March 1st (it's been approved by Gov. Murphy)... Going up another 5 cents!

[roadman65]

You are correct J&N. The 2009 Manual didn't really address that issue. The 2023 Manual expands a lot on BGS spec's. with a lot of new graphics and specific guidance. And again, some of which I think is poorly thought out.

One thing they did expand on effectively though is allowing partial width Arrow-per-lane overhead signs, which allow the sign to just govern the two right lanes instead of the entire roadway width. Interestingly, G.S. Parkway already had at least one sign like that northbound, just north of the Union Toll Plaza at the I-78 interchange.

They had a few. The signs for the new SB Exit 125 ramp utilize them. They started these around 2008-09 (the one at 142C is from when they built the Parkway-78 missing moves ramps).

https://maps.app.goo.gl/dBiJpMcQ9NtQpJen7

Here is another one SB at I-80.

[boilerup25]

Unrelated discussion, but there is a sign, specifically a lack thereof, on a Parkway exit ramp that bothers me for some reason. On Exit 127 NB, at the gore split between the ramp for US 9 NB and NJ 440, the NJ 440 overhead sign only indicates NJ 440 SB to I-287 NB / Raritan Center, when there is also access to NJ 440 NB to Perth Amboy and Staten Island. This is particularly egregious because the previous and following signs all indicate access to NJ 440 NB, but the overheads at the gore do not. This made navigating the exit somewhat confusing.

Sign (for NJ 440 SB) & lack thereof (for NJ 440 NB) in question:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5197851,-74.3002727,3a,75y,19.1h,96.36t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFLc6HPWi6XuLJyFHcZ-iKw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DFLc6HPWi6XuLJyFHcZ-iKw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D20.06886%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Sign immediately following the US 9 NB / NJ 440 ramp split gore along the ramp to NJ 440 (signs for both directions of 440):
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5205312,-74.2994639,3a,75y,62.56h,92.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ8w_MsbzbsOkqwCd3CHSPg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Sign before the split:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5183958,-74.3007224,3a,64.3y,18.28h,96.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7cAPDC25_JvOJcbDo8IhpQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Sign along the NB C-D road before Exit 127:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5163505,-74.300889,3a,26.1y,356.06h,97.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBfWbsYjQBGn11OV3APLPSw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

I know it seems like a minor issue, but I just wanted to ask why NJ 440 NB hasn't been properly signed at the US 9-NJ 440 ramp split on the overheads.

[Alps]

Unrelated discussion, but there is a sign, specifically a lack thereof, on a Parkway exit ramp that bothers me for some reason. On Exit 127 NB, at the gore split between the ramp for US 9 NB and NJ 440, the NJ 440 overhead sign only indicates NJ 440 SB to I-287 NB / Raritan Center, when there is also access to NJ 440 NB to Perth Amboy and Staten Island. This is particularly egregious because the previous and following signs all indicate access to NJ 440 NB, but the overheads at the gore do not. This made navigating the exit somewhat confusing.

Sign (for NJ 440 SB) & lack thereof (for NJ 440 NB) in question:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5197851,-74.3002727,3a,75y,19.1h,96.36t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFLc6HPWi6XuLJyFHcZ-iKw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DFLc6HPWi6XuLJyFHcZ-iKw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D20.06886%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Sign immediately following the US 9 NB / NJ 440 ramp split gore along the ramp to NJ 440 (signs for both directions of 440):
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5205312,-74.2994639,3a,75y,62.56h,92.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ8w_MsbzbsOkqwCd3CHSPg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Sign before the split:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5183958,-74.3007224,3a,64.3y,18.28h,96.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7cAPDC25_JvOJcbDo8IhpQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Sign along the NB C-D road before Exit 127:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5163505,-74.300889,3a,26.1y,356.06h,97.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBfWbsYjQBGn11OV3APLPSw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

I know it seems like a minor issue, but I just wanted to ask why NJ 440 NB hasn't been properly signed at the US 9-NJ 440 ramp split on the overheads.

Seems like an oversight, since the previous sign had 440 North on the far right on a separate sign - should have also been at the exit, but that would turn that into a full span instead of a cantilever. Don't blame me!

[SignBridge]

I think NJDOT's answer would be that the sign prior to the split in question instructs you to "Keep Right" for 440-North, Perth Amboy, Staten Island. And that if you follow that instruction it will carry you thru the split where the sign is "missing" to the next split where there is a 440-North sign.

Though I am not a fan of some NJDOT signing practices even I have to admit that this area is very complex with a lot of routes and route numbers. And I guess NJDOT did the best they could in this case.

On the other hand, one could argue that this route to Staten Island is used by a lot of traffic going to Brooklyn and Long Island and maybe should have been given a little higher priority in the signing.

I have traveled the route in question and I don't recall having had a problem navigating it so I guess it works the way they signed it.

[roadman65]

I think NJDOT's answer would be that the sign prior to the split in question instructs you to "Keep Right" for 440-North, Perth Amboy, Staten Island. And that if you follow that instruction it will carry you thru the split where the sign is "missing" to the next split where there is a 440-North sign.

Though I am not a fan of some NJDOT signing practices even I have to admit that this area is very complex with a lot of routes and route numbers. And I guess NJDOT did the best they could in this case.

On the other hand, one could argue that this route to Staten Island is used by a lot of traffic going to Brooklyn and Long Island and maybe should have been given a little higher priority in the signing.

I have traveled the route in question and I don't recall having had a problem navigating it so I guess it works the way they signed it.

It used to not sign it exclusively for NJ 440 SB. Originally it was signed with a NJ 440 and an I-287 shield ( no directions) and Perth Amboy/ Staten Island. Raritan Center wasn't a signed place of interest then, so SB 440 had no control cities hence only Perth Amboy and Staten Island.

This new setup was implemented in the nineties but those cantilever signs were added rather recently as before were normal metal poles supporting them. https://maps.app.goo.gl/r7oNcqR7LKusnJQ78  Between 2015 and 2018 per Street view.

IMO the split should have one panel partitioned with a SB 440 and TO I-287 on the left with an arrow and a NB 440 on the right with another arrow.  Control cities are covered well on the earlier signs and would take up to much space but still control the route movements.

[storm2k]

I think NJDOT's answer would be that the sign prior to the split in question instructs you to "Keep Right" for 440-North, Perth Amboy, Staten Island. And that if you follow that instruction it will carry you thru the split where the sign is "missing" to the next split where there is a 440-North sign.

Though I am not a fan of some NJDOT signing practices even I have to admit that this area is very complex with a lot of routes and route numbers. And I guess NJDOT did the best they could in this case.

On the other hand, one could argue that this route to Staten Island is used by a lot of traffic going to Brooklyn and Long Island and maybe should have been given a little higher priority in the signing.

I have traveled the route in question and I don't recall having had a problem navigating it so I guess it works the way they signed it.

In this case, it's actually Turnpike Authority signage and has been for a while. The pre-rusted structures are the dead giveaway. These signs were replaced in late 2015-early 2016 or thereabouts as part of the overall signage upgrade/replacement project that the Turnpike Authority overtook on the Parkway.